2019
DOI: 10.1007/s41809-019-00044-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mapping thematic roles onto grammatical functions in sentence production: evidence from structural priming in Italian

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
2
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The fact that the prime and target sentences in the current study did not share content words, meaning, or homophones suggests that the observed syntactic priming occurred due to similarity in the syntactic representation between prime and target sentences (DO prime: VP-NP-NP-NP, DO target: VP-NP-NP-NP). This finding is in line with previous works on Indo-European languages (Hartsuiker et al, 2008;Messenger et al, 2012;Rowland et al, 2012;Bernolet et al, 2016;Branigan and Messenger, 2016;Vernice and Hartsuiker, 2019;Hardy et al, 2020;Coumel et al, 2022) as well as on Mandarin (Huang et al, 2016;Chen et al, 2019) but differs from data on Japanese (Chang et al, 2022). The difference from Japanese data is because Chang et al (2022) manipulated meaning in their experimental design, while no similar manipulation was done in the current study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The fact that the prime and target sentences in the current study did not share content words, meaning, or homophones suggests that the observed syntactic priming occurred due to similarity in the syntactic representation between prime and target sentences (DO prime: VP-NP-NP-NP, DO target: VP-NP-NP-NP). This finding is in line with previous works on Indo-European languages (Hartsuiker et al, 2008;Messenger et al, 2012;Rowland et al, 2012;Bernolet et al, 2016;Branigan and Messenger, 2016;Vernice and Hartsuiker, 2019;Hardy et al, 2020;Coumel et al, 2022) as well as on Mandarin (Huang et al, 2016;Chen et al, 2019) but differs from data on Japanese (Chang et al, 2022). The difference from Japanese data is because Chang et al (2022) manipulated meaning in their experimental design, while no similar manipulation was done in the current study.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…There was a higher likelihood to use an active target sentence (e.g., the cat chased the mouse") after repeating an active prime sentence ("the farmer killed the duckling") than after repeating a passive ("the duckling was killed by the farmer"). These findings suggest a separate syntactic representation responsible for priming and are confirmed by works on such Indo-European languages as English (Messenger et al, 2012;Rowland et al, 2012;Branigan and Messenger, 2016;Hardy et al, 2020), German , Dutch (Hartsuiker et al, 2008;Bernolet et al, 2016), French (Coumel et al, 2022), and Italian (Vernice and Hartsuiker, 2019) as well as Mandarin (Huang et al, 2016;Chen et al, 2019).…”
Section: Abstract Syntactic Primingsupporting
confidence: 56%
“…Mercan and Hohenberger emphasized using structural priming to investigate syntactic structure and Ziegler et al emphasized its use to investigate semantic structure. Vernice and Hartsuiker (2019) concentrated on the mapping between the two levels, and considered how priming could help discriminate theories of how this mapping might occur. In their study, they used structural priming to modulate a default bias to assign agents as subjects, and found that priming increased the proportion of passives overall.…”
Section: The Papers In This Issuementioning
confidence: 99%